"kay" wrote
In my area, a high proportion of the development is planned to be on the
green belt, development on brownfield land has all but ceased (it's
cheaper to build on fields), and nationally there is a large pool of
totally unoccupied property.

Despite the national shortage of smaller cheaper properties, most
development is of "executive homes" - don't cost much more to build but
greater proportional profits.

If all we protect are National Parks, what proportion of the population
live near enough to one to benefit regularly from enjoyment of the
natural environment?

If we keep building outwards from cities on to agricultural land, what
prospect do we ever have of being less reliant on imported food?

I'm not giving any answers - there wouldn't be so much argument if there
were easy answers.


Considering the number of people with two or more homes, you can only live
in one at a time, if they made it very expensive to have two homes then
maybe a lot would come onto the market. If you travel around, say, Hampshire
you will come across villages that are all but deserted during the week but
on Friday evening all the London crowd arrive for just two days. It's the
also the main reason the pubs and shops close down, no locals.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK